An Exegetical Refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (2): 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:27-29

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TriuneUnity said:
I would say that he held a different sacramental theology in that he doesn’t bind the validity of the sacrament to the ordination of the person reciting the words of institution. I think what Paul is getting at here is that by the actions of the congregation, they were denying that Christ is present in the sacrament, as well as their sinful behavior toward it. In Lutheran theology, the piety of the congregation doesn’t affect the validity of the sacrament; but, what does happen is that if the sacrament is not celebrated according to Christ’s institution, it is not the Lord’s Supper that is being celebrated. This is why, for example, we do not believe the Reformed celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
Click to expand...
So what would be the criteria in considering whether it had been celebrated according to Christ’s institution? Can they be made to align with the situation we find here?
 
If I may jump in for a second…

What I think Paul was getting at was the same as what St Augustine described in referrence to the unity that is held in and is necessary for the Eucharist. If we wish to partake in the Eucharist, we are all held together, with Christ, just as the many grains of wheat are contained within the host. We are put through the mill, tried and pulled through fire to become what we need to be. If a person is a public sinner and attempts to be a part of this purified institution, they eat and drink toward their own damnation. They do not affect the whole, but should be addressed in order not to disrupt the unity and charity that is needed to make the Church/Eucharist whole.

Another side thought I wanted to put out there to see what everyone thought about it:
Augustine also talks about the unity that is required for the Eucharist to be real. In a like manner with baptism, the Holy Spirit arrives at the moment of consecration/baptism, but sine the spirit of disunity is present, it leaves as quickly as it arrived. Only when the Christian is unified with the whole body of believers, no matter what their division may be a product of, can the sacrament be realized. All disputes and differences should be worked out within the unity of the Church and with the spirit of love, faith and charity. Even though the Donatists celebrated the same way and believed the same things, their attitude of division kept the sacraments they did from being real because they did not have unity in their hearts. I would provide referrences, but I’m on my phone. 🙂
Thoughts?
 
aquabatix said:
If I may jump in for a second…

What I think Paul was getting at was the same as what St Augustine described in referrence to the unity that is held in and is necessary for the Eucharist. If we wish to partake in the Eucharist, we are all held together, with Christ, just as the many grains of wheat are contained within the host. We are put through the mill, tried and pulled through fire to become what we need to be. If a person is a public sinner and attempts to be a part of this purified institution, they eat and drink toward their own damnation. They do not affect the whole, but should be addressed in order not to disrupt the unity and charity that is needed to make the Church/Eucharist whole.

Another side thought I wanted to put out there to see what everyone thought about it:
Augustine also talks about the unity that is required for the Eucharist to be real. In a like manner with baptism, the Holy Spirit arrives at the moment of consecration/baptism, but sine the spirit of disunity is present, it leaves as quickly as it arrived. Only when the Christian is unified with the whole body of believers, no matter what their division may be a product of, can the sacrament be realized. All disputes and differences should be worked out within the unity of the Church and with the spirit of love, faith and charity. Even though the Donatists celebrated the same way and believed the same things, their attitude of division kept the sacraments they did from being real because they did not have unity in their hearts. I would provide referrences, but I’m on my phone. 🙂
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Hi Mike,

Interesting thoughts you put forward. The first is very much in line with the Scriptural admonition to examine ourselves. The concern I would have is that Paul is addressing the whole Corinthian church in verse 20 when he says they do not eat the Lord’s Supper, rather than specifically addressing the public sinners.

Your second point sounds very interesting (and also ironic, if Donatists’ sacraments are invalidated by being Donatist) I’d appreciate a reference when you have some time in the future so I can go and explore the topic a bit. Thanks. 🙂
 
Non_Serviam said:
So what would be the criteria in considering whether it had been celebrated according to Christ’s institution? Can they be made to align with the situation we find here?
Click to expand...
Christ instituted Holy Communion as the administration of His body and blood, with bread and wine, for Christians to eat and drink for the forgiveness of their sins.

In v. 20, Paul emphatically tells the Corinthians that it is not the Lord’s Supper that they eat. Why? “For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.” So, we can perhaps estimate that the Corinthians were not celebrating the Supper as Christ instituted it, which would invalidate the sacrament. In chapter 10, there is also a hint that the Supper was being mixed with syncretistic pagan feasts.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Christ instituted Holy Communion as the administration of His body and blood, with bread and wine, for Christians to eat and drink for the forgiveness of their sins.

In v. 20, Paul emphatically tells the Corinthians that it is not the Lord’s Supper that they eat. Why? “For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.” So, we can perhaps estimate that the Corinthians were not celebrating the Supper as Christ instituted it, which would invalidate the sacrament. In chapter 10, there is also a hint that the Supper was being mixed with syncretistic pagan feasts.
Click to expand...
Are there any specifics on Form or Matter that would invalidate it beyond the obvious (e.g. using Tang and nacho chips)? Are the words of insitution an issue? Not arguming, just trying to understand the Lutheran concept of validity as opposed to the Catholic version.

Both of your subsequent points have merit-but I must say I’m interested in the point about Augustine and the Donatists above.

Hmmm…sounds like a 50’s group. 🙂
 
Non_Serviam said:
Are there any specifics on Form or Matter that would invalidate it beyond the obvious (e.g. using Tang and nacho chips)? Are the words of insitution an issue? Not arguming, just trying to understand the Lutheran concept of validity as opposed to the Catholic version.

Both of your subsequent points have merit-but I must say I’m interested in the point about Augustine and the Donatists above.

Hmmm…sounds like a 50’s group. 🙂
Click to expand...
The words of institution do not validate or invalidate the sacrament. The issue for Lutherans is the reason for the sacrament being celebrated. It is either according to how Christ instituted it or not. Chiefly, being whether it is celebrated as the body and blood of Christ given for forgiveness. An example may help. Baptism. Mormon baptism is done in the same way that Christian baptisms are done. However, it is being celebrated as a baptism into three separate, non-equal deities. This isn’t how Jesus instituted it. Therefore, it’s invalid.

Roman Catholics believe the Eucharist is transubstantiated; they also believe it’s a sacrifice of atonement. While we reject both of these ideas, they still celebrate it as the distribution of the body and blood of Christ for forgiveness. Therefore, we consider the sacrament valid.

So the issue then with the Corinthians, is that they weren’t doing this. They were treating it as a common meal, getting drunk, segregating the poor, etc. Therefore, it wasn’t the Lord’s Supper.

I am not sure if the Donatists were ever considered to have invalid sacraments. I am not too familiar on that one.
 
TriuneUnity said:
The words of institution do not validate or invalidate the sacrament. The issue for Lutherans is the reason for the sacrament being celebrated. It is either according to how Christ instituted it or not. Chiefly, being whether it is celebrated as the body and blood of Christ given for forgiveness. An example may help. Baptism. Mormon baptism is done in the same way that Christian baptisms are done. However, it is being celebrated as a baptism into three separate, non-equal deities. This isn’t how Jesus instituted it. Therefore, it’s invalid.

Roman Catholics believe the Eucharist is transubstantiated; they also believe it’s a sacrifice of atonement. While we reject both of these ideas, they still celebrate it as the distribution of the body and blood of Christ for forgiveness. Therefore, we consider the sacrament valid.

So the issue then with the Corinthians, is that they weren’t doing this. They were treating it as a common meal, getting drunk, segregating the poor, etc. Therefore, it wasn’t the Lord’s Supper.

I am not sure if the Donatists were ever considered to have invalid sacraments. I am not too familiar on that one.
Click to expand...
Ok, so it is very much like the Catholic idea on baptism, that even an unbaptised person can administer baptism if he or she intends to do what the church intends with baptism.

Also interesting your previous comment about not binding validity to ordination-so it is the intent of the whole assembly (or at least the majority of it) that has an impact on validity?

The Donatist comment was in response to Aquabatix’s post-I don’t recall ever seeing something like that in Augustine. It would be very interesting given how “flexible” Catholicism is in accepting the validity of the sacraments from the Orthodox that Augustine might have had a different view regarding the Donatists who would also have also possessed the succession needed for validity.

(NOTE: I am not comparing Orthodox to Donatists-just views on the validity of the sacraments confected by each group)
 
Non_Serviam said:
Ok, so it is very much like the Catholic idea on baptism, that even an unbaptised person can administer baptism if he or she intends to do what the church intends with baptism.

Also interesting your previous comment about not binding validity to ordination-so it is the intent of the whole assembly (or at least the majority of it) that has an impact on validity
Click to expand...
The intent of the ministers in consecrating and distributing. Of course, you will always find some in the assembly who do not believe, but this only impacts them.

We don’t believe ordination has anything to do with it. For good church order, it’s understood that only called ministers should institute the Supper and distribute. However, if a layman had to do it, it wouldn’t change anything. I’ve done it myself when our pastor was out of town.
 
TriuneUnity said:
The intent of the ministers in consecrating and distributing. Of course, you will always find some in the assembly who do not believe, but this only impacts them.

We don’t believe ordination has anything to do with it. For good church order, it’s understood that only called ministers should institute the Supper and distribute. However, if a layman had to do it, it wouldn’t change anything. I’ve done it myself when our pastor was out of town.
Click to expand...
Interesting your last point-A couple of years ago I had started a brief thread on the topic of the necessity of a priest to perform the consecration. No Lutherans jumped in. 😃
 
TriuneUnity said:
haha…I don’t think I was here then.
Click to expand...
Understood-I’m just thinking the discussion might have gone on longer in that situation.

Question-do Lutherans believe the Lord’s Supper will forgive sin for which there has been no repentance?
 
Non_Serviam said:
Understood-I’m just thinking the discussion might have gone on longer in that situation.

Question-do Lutherans believe the Lord’s Supper will forgive sin for which there has been no repentance?
Click to expand...
No. The grace is legitimately being offered in the Supper, but the lack of faith by the recipient is bringing judgment through eating. I have often wondered about this. When it’s discussed, it’s usually in the context of the medieval notion of ex opere operato. However, I don’t think even Catholics would say it’s effectual in the case of non-repentance. I think that was more focused on the Supper being effectual for the dead in purgatory simply because the Mass is being said.
 
TriuneUnity said:
No. The grace is legitimately being offered in the Supper, but the lack of faith by the recipient is bringing judgment through eating. I have often wondered about this. When it’s discussed, it’s usually in the context of the medieval notion of ex opere operato. However, I don’t think even Catholics would say it’s effectual in the case of non-repentance. I think that was more focused on the Supper being effectual for the dead in purgatory simply because the Mass is being said.
Click to expand...
Ok-let’s look at this. The Corinthians are tolerating a number of public sins in their church-sexual immorality, divisions, abuses at the Lord’s Supper, etc. In tolerating them, they are also disobeying Jesus’ command to deal with such things. Thus as a body, they lack repentance, and as a body (including the leadership) they do not believe that the meal will forgive their sin, because they are unrepentant and don’t acknowledge any need for forgiveness.

In this case, would the leadership not be intending to do what Christ instituted (coming together as one body to recieve Christ’s body and Blood and the forgivess that accompanies reception), thus invalidating the sacrament, leading to Paul’s comment in verse 20?
 
Non_Serviam said:
Ok-let’s look at this. The Corinthians are tolerating a number of public sins in their church-sexual immorality, divisions, abuses at the Lord’s Supper, etc. In tolerating them, they are also disobeying Jesus’ command to deal with such things. Thus as a body, they lack repentance, and as a body (including the leadership) they do not believe that the meal will forgive their sin, because they are unrepentant and don’t acknowledge any need for forgiveness.

In this case, would the leadership not be intending to do what Christ instituted (coming together as one body to recieve Christ’s body and Blood and the forgivess that accompanies reception), thus invalidating the sacrament, leading to Paul’s comment in verse 20?
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure it plays into the discussion. Since the Lord’s Supper is instituted for the forgiveness of sins, it would be hard to celebrate it according to Christ’s command if sins are being committed during its supposed observation! As you said, it’s also pretty obvious the Corinthians were unrepentant about the sin being committed.
 
TriuneUnity said:
I am pretty sure it plays into the discussion. Since the Lord’s Supper is instituted for the forgiveness of sins, it would be hard to celebrate it according to Christ’s command if sins are being committed during its supposed observation! As you said, it’s also pretty obvious the Corinthians were unrepentant about the sin being committed.
Click to expand...
Had never quite thought of it as sinning while they should be being foregiven of sin-it makes sense that Paul was so upset. The continuned unrepentance had made them impervious to conscience and Spirit. And also unaware of their being the Body of Christ and how their divisions and actions were also making a mockery of that truth. It’s compounded error-all from failing to deal with what were likely small and simple issues at the beginning.
 
Non_Serviam said:
Had never quite thought of it as sinning while they should be being foregiven of sin-it makes sense that Paul was so upset. The continuned unrepentance had made them impervious to conscience and Spirit. And also unaware of their being the Body of Christ and how their divisions and actions were also making a mockery of that truth. It’s compounded error-all from failing to deal with what were likely small and simple issues at the beginning.
Click to expand...
I think a good analogy is, if you’re familiar with the practice, in England, of high table dinners. Whereas rich guests of honor are afforded better seating, looking down on the “common” people. They’re given better food, prompter service, etc (incidentally, this actually was present in Anglicanism in England). I believe it may have started that way.
 
TriuneUnity said:
I think a good analogy is, if you’re familiar with the practice, in England, of high table dinners. Whereas rich guests of honor are afforded better seating, looking down on the “common” people. They’re given better food, prompter service, etc (incidentally, this actually was present in Anglicanism in England). I believe it may have started that way.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly. I’ve always tried to take Jesus’ words to heart when I’ve been invited to sit at the head table during a conference or other event. One friend of mine learned his lesson when he was “bumped” from his seat at a conference banquet when John Stott showed up unexpectedly. 🙂
 
Non_Serviam said:
Quite possibly. I’ve always tried to take Jesus’ words to heart when I’ve been invited to sit at the head table during a conference or other event. One friend of mine learned his lesson when he was “bumped” from his seat at a conference banquet when John Stott showed up unexpectedly. 🙂
Click to expand...
As much as I like John Stott’s writing… that’s exactly what the problem was in Corinth lol
 
TriuneUnity said:
As much as I like John Stott’s writing… that’s exactly what the problem was in Corinth lol
Click to expand...
Please, don’t misunderstand-my friend was quite clear that he was certain Stott knew nothing about the “bumping” that it was at the behest of the conference organizer who wanted to chat him up during dinner. I’m not sure what they would have told Stott about the open seat, but I’m sure it was likely something shared later between the organizer and his confessor. 😉

He was indeed an excellent writer.

I think that’s it for me on the Corinthians passage, unless someone has some other point to make?
 
Non_Serviam said:
Please, don’t misunderstand-my friend was quite clear that he was certain Stott knew nothing about the “bumping” that it was at the behest of the conference organizer who wanted to chat him up during dinner. I’m not sure what they would have told Stott about the open seat, but I’m sure it was likely something shared later between the organizer and his confessor. 😉
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m sure Stott wasn’t. I think it’s somewhat indicative that we’re not immune to celebrities within the Christian circle (just look at the gaffawing that goes on over men like John Piper).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top